News analysis As Australia prepares to export a large stockpile of toxic waste to Denmark, the pressure is on to find a local solution to a new wave of persistent organic pollutants.

Earlier this month Danish authorities agreed to accept thousands of tonnes of Orica's hexachlorobenzene (HCB) waste from Botany in Sydney for incineration.

HCBs are persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are very toxic and present a major threat to the environment.

Under an international agreement called the Stockholm Convention, designed to avoid risky long-distant transport of POPs, countries are expected to deal with such waste themselves.

But Australia does not currently have a facility to deal with the 16,000 tonnes of HCBs stored at Orica's Botany site. The export plan has the support of the environment minister, Peter Garrett, in whose electorate the waste lies.

Once a government licence is granted for the export, it will end decades of argument over what to do with the HCB waste.

But questions remain over what Australia will do with a growing burden of new POP waste, including brominated flame retardants, used in products such as foam mattresses and the plastic components of televisions and computers.

In May last year, the Stockholm Convention listed these, and eight other chemicals as new POPs, adding to the existing "Dirty Dozen".

"What people don't realise is that there is a burgeoning stockpile of POPs waste in Australia and no treatment capacity," says Lee Bell from the National Toxics Network.

"We are becoming a laughing stock internationally because we are one of the few OECD countries that can't manage the POPs waste it generates. We urgently need a national capacity to deal with POPs."

Responsibility for waste

Emeritus Professor Ben Selinger, based at the Australian National University in Canberra chaired an independent panel nearly two decades ago, which recommended toxic waste, including the HCBs at Botany, be dealt with in Australia.

"We thought we had a responsibility for waste that we generated," says Selinger.

But after years of argument over the effectiveness, safety and commercial viability of different technologies, and the failure of the government to settle on a site for a waste treatment facility, Selinger has lost patience.

"The HCB waste is polluting Botany Bay," he says. "Now, I wouldn't be unhappy to see it shipped out."

But Selinger thinks a local solution should be found for newer sources of POPs, including those in e-waste.

"Are we a big enough country to develop technologies to look after our own waste or do we just ship it off for somebody else to handle?" says Selinger.

Technology development

Professor Ian Rae of the University of Melbourne, who also advises governments on HCBs and other POPs says he is "disappointed" about the move to export.

He says Australia had the opportunity in the 1990s to develop technologies that could be used to dispose of POPs.

"I think it would have been good for us to have developed the technology on the scale that was needed and to have done it here," says Rae.

He says the reasons for Australia's lack of capacity to destroy POPs are "mainly political not technical", with a lack of trust in those attempting to build waste management facilities a major barrier to finding a solution.

The challenge of e-waste

Rae says the new stockpiles of POPs scattered around the country in electronic and other consumer waste presents a much greater challenge than Orica's HCBs, which are concentrated in one place.

According to the 2010 National Waste Report, Australia generates about 106,000 tonnes per year of e-waste in the form of old televisions and computers. This is expected to increase to 181,000 tonnes per year by 2027-28.

Most of these end up in landfill, with some small amounts being recycled.

Rae says while Australia has banned the import of certain POPs, industrial chemical laws do not prevent the importation of the chemicals in consumer products.

"So if you bring in a plastic computer case or a television set case or foam for building insulation with flame retardant in it, it's not something that normal regulations cover," he says.

"Clock ticking"

Rae, who has been Australia's expert representative at Stockholm Convention discussions, says the "clock is ticking" for the government to develop a plan to deal with the new generation of POPs.

"I'd like to know what the timescale is and what sort of technical solution they've got," he says.

The National Toxics Network's Lee Bell, who sits on the stakeholder committee dealing with developments under the Stockholm convention is concerned about the pace of action.

"Most people on the committee - including industry - have called for it to meet more regularly and to be more meaningful. But we've just through the longest period ever without meeting," says Bell.

A spokesperson for the Australian department of environment says as part of the process of ratifying the nine new POPs, consultations with stakeholders will begin next month and continue into the first half of next year.